Okay. Gosh. >> Here we go. >> John's not here. >> I forget John. >> Four of us. >> Eric. >> Yeah. >> Let's kick off.
>> Great. >> Good morning. Welcome to the Crowing County Board of Commissioners, our regular meeting. Um, could you please join me for a pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence? >> Pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. First item on the agenda is open forum. Um, Robert Grant.
>> I just want to comment how great I think the sheriff's department is and the sheriff we have. I appreciate him very much. And uh I did get results out of my ask about the stoplight. At least three cars can make it through at 13 and 371.
It's not perfect, but I'll take it because I at least I don't have to wait two times to go through that stoplight. And then I also wanted to mention that I came from a county, Steel County, Minnesota, where transparency isn't they don't have any transparency at all. They
don't videotape their things. The private public has to do it. and I feel you guys are upfront and honest and and you're doing a good job for the taxpayers of Crowing County and how much I appreciate that. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you, >> Doug Kern. Doug Kern, Crowing Township. I I just wanted to say, you know, after last mo the last meeting I attended when the room was packed afterward, um you know, Sheriff Clang and me, we stood out here
and talked to a bunch of the people that that I completely disagree with. And it was one of the best conversations that that we I've heard in years as far as uh law and order and the chain of command. And I just really want to say thank you
to you commissioners for the job you did and the job you do working with our sheriff. Um just I know that I walked away with information. They walked away with information and they agreed with clang when they walked away and was very
very good. Uh in a day and age where we have sex offenders, illegal sex offenders or you know people that are not citizens being pardoned by our governor. I just appreciate law and order. I really really appreciate it. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Okay. Review and approval of the minutes from June 23rd. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion by Commissioner Coring. Second by Commissioner Lee. All those in favor? >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Review and approve the agenda.
>> Madam Chair, the only change is number seven, administrative services. There's nothing under that item today. So that will be removed from the agenda. >> Motion to approve with changes. >> Second Barrows. >> A motion by Commissioner Coring, second by Commissioner Barrows. All those in
favor? >> I I >> motion carries. Consent agenda. I'll make a motion to approve. >> Barrows will second. Motion by Commissioner Lee, second by Commissioner Barrows. All those in favor?
>> I >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. Public hearing for reclassific Well, it's not 95, is it? >> Really close. If Tom gives us a little update on Sorry, Madam Chair. If Tom just gives us
a little update on what the public hearing is about, it'll be time to open the hearing when he's done. >> Yes. Thank you. Uh good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. Thank you for your time today. Uh we have a public hearing today uh in regard to the reclassification and intended sale of some tax forfeited lands. Uh per the
land asset management policy, land services identified numerous parcels that meet the criteria for devestment. Uh to meet that criteria for devestment, according to the land asset management policy, a parcel cannot contain any recreational trails and must meet one of the following criteria. The parcel uh
joins private property. The parcel is not accessible to the public. um the parcel is surrounded by private property and is isolated from other county managed lands. Once we identify these parcels that fit the criteria for devestment, uh Minnesota statute requires that we notify the city or town
board of the intended sale and reclassification of the property from conservation to non-conservation. Uh letters were sent to the cities and townships in January, March, and April seeking the approval to sell these properties. Um of the parcels that we sent, six were denied by the cities and
townships. Um the six parcels that were denied uh include two in Riverton P 30200501 and 302000550, two parcels within the city of Emily 21320543 and 21330599
and two parcels within the city of Fifty Lakes 22320524 and 22320527. If a city or township denies the reclassification per Minnesota statutes 282.01 01 uh subdivision 1H, a public
hearing, which we're here for today, must be held to allow testimony from the cities and townships. Uh after the cities and townships and residents have uh testified, the county board may classify, reclassify, or deny taking action on any of these parcels for sale. Pause for any questions,
>> Madame Chair. So Tom, what recclassify to from what to what? >> Yep. Uh, Madam Chair, Commissioner Coring, so the so some of these parcels are classified as conservation. It's a it's a term that's outlined in statute, meaning that we want to hold uh for management. And when we reclassify them
into non-conservation, it signifies that we're ready to devest of those properties. And this would be part, madam chair, this would be part of our something that we've been doing for years is dvesting ourselves of like if you have a landlocked 40 that that's
really you can't get to to do timber on it. This doesn't do any good for us to hang on to it. This would be something similar to that, I would assume. >> Yes, Commissioner. It it could be similar to that. It could be um you know, we don't have access neither does the public to the public property. Yeah.
uh it could be parcels that are isolated, you know, 40s that are surrounded by private property. We may even have access, but it does not consolidate our land holdings. Um and so when we consolidate, we reduce the administrative costs to, you know, establish property lines, um set up
timber sales, it just it it helps when we have these larger blocks of contiguous land. So these these six that we're discussing here today with the public hearing fit those criteria for devestment. Well, I just want to say thanks to the land services department for moving forward with something that I
think the county board has has we've wanted to continue to do and you you've been doing it for the last I think 10 years. I think when Paul Titi was here, we we kind of tasked you with that and so I see that you're continuing
to do it. I appreciate that. Makes sense, >> Madam Chair. If there's no other discussion, I would make >> Madam Chair, may I? >> So, when you do that, you go out there and look at you look at the vast what do we have 105,000 acres of and then you
kind of pick them out and then you How do you determine how many you're going to put up for sale, how you're going to determine not what you're going to put up for sale, and is it just done by by the land services department doing that or if I said, "Gee, there's a piece of property up by some property I own." Um,
gee, I'd sure like to I'd sure like to have that taken off conservation so I could look at buying it. Can I come in and say that I would like to do that? >> Yeah, Madam Chair, Commissioner Lupkey, uh, I think both circumstances are correct. Um, land services looks at our our inventory list and identifies these
parcels that fit um, your policy and procedure, the land asset management plan. We also do have residents that call and say, "Hey, I'm interested in this tax for property." And then we vet those against your policies of of devestment. You know, does it have recreation trails? Is it surrounded or you know is it part of a larger block of
taxer land? Is it isolated? So we routinely um we have a list of of every parcel that meets the criteria and so every year we we slowly work on that list um to devest of those parcels. >> Okay. So it could be somebody sitting there and saying you know it's it's conservation land. It's not bringing any
taxes in. It's not bringing any revenue from logging. So, why not get it back out on the tax role as long as we maintain enough of a how do you call it? A bank of county owned property that we can manage. Correct. Okay. Thank you. That's all I had.
>> Madam Chair, if there are no other questions or concerns, I would make the motion to open the public hearing at 9:09 for the reclassification and intended sale of tax forfeited lands. >> Second. Motion to open the meeting by Commissioner Barrow, second by
Commissioner Coring. All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. The public hearing is open. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? Anyone who wishes to speak? >> Anybody online?
>> Anyone who wishes to speak? Madame Chair, I would move to close the public hearing on the reclassification intent to sell sale of tax forfeited lands. >> Second, Barrows. >> Motion to close by Commissioner Coring,
second by Commissioner Barrows. All those in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. >> Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners. Uh before you I have our 2026 final tax forfeited land sale list which does include those six parcels that were previously on that public
hearing. Uh this item is to uh seeking approval to classify these tax forfeited parcels as non-conservation. Remove those that are in the memorial forest designation. Remove that designation. And there was three of them that were currently over-thecounter. We're going to remove them from the
over-the-counter list and put them on the auction list. and we are seeking your approval for this final 2026 land sale list. Um, we did receive approval or approval has been requested from the corresponding cities and townships as
well as the Minnesota DNR and any of these tracks can be withdrawn up until the time of sale as well. >> Madame Chair, I would move the request for board action from land services. I'll second it. Motion by Commissioner
Coring, second by Commissioner Lee. All those in favor? >> I I >> You have a question on that. What does it mean to remove it from Memorial Forest? I mean, how did it get designated as Memorial Forest and what does it really mean to remove it from Memorial Forest? You would think
Memorial is something that stays forever. >> Sure. >> Yes, Madam Chair. Commissioner Lupkkey. So, uh, back when, um, a lot of these lands went tax forfeit, um, the, uh, old cohort of of land commissioners sought that as an additional protection of
these properties. Um, what we found out today that, uh, it necessarily, you know, the lands are protected by the county board. So, um, we have a lot of these lands that are that are in this memorial forest and they're often times just an entire township is called the Ross Lake memorial forest, for instance.
And so according to Minnesota statutes 282, we have to remove it from that designation. Um the average person wouldn't know that a piece of tax land is in the memorial forest or not. >> Would it be was it before we had a really good u forest management plan? Was that maybe when memorial forests
were put in there? Because I think we have a pretty pretty decent forest management plan. >> Yeah. Uh Madam Chair, Commissioner Lupkey, it was we did have a forest management plan. What we didn't have was a good idea of what we had. Um, so we didn't have the best inventory data to know what was out there. And oftentimes,
um, there wasn't, uh, there wasn't a thought of how do we better manage these in the future by doing this consolidation. Um, it was before that land asset management policy came along of wanting these larger blocks of land of land that the public could access. So oftentimes they they took everything that was in a specific township or area
and just lumped it in together. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. We still have a motion on the table. All those in favor? >> I >> I >> I don't think we have a motion on the table. >> Yeah, we had a motion in a second before
I before I discussed it. >> Okay. >> Okay. All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. >> All right. And then then we have the the attached resolution that is approving the classification of those parcels and
the sale of the tax forfeited lands to the state and it includes the terms of the sale including fees and the dates of the sale which we are requesting to be set as August 14th to August 24th. >> Madam Chair, I would move the adoption
of the resolution presented to us here at the county board. >> I'll second it. Motion by Commissioner Coring, second by Commissioner Lee. Is there any more discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed. Motion carries.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, community services. Good morning, Madam Chair and, uh, fellow commissioners. Tammy Luick, uh, adult services divisional manager, uh, community services. So, I'm here before you today to request approval for out of
state travel to the National Conference on Correctional Healthcare, October 25th through the 28th of this year in Las Vegas, Nevada. This conference is a leading national training um, event focused on correctional um, not only mental health, but health re-entry
services and best practices for supporting individuals involved in the criminal justice system. Um the sheriff's office and community services will be utilizing existing training budgets to cover these expenses. The sheriff's office will fund the conference registration and community services will cover the hotels, meals,
and airfare. Um we do not have a conference such as this uh in Minnesota that sp that focuses specifically on re-entry services and correctional mental health and physical health which limits um access to specialized training. uh attending this. We feel
that it brings um a lot of um knowledge, practice, best practices um to our staff person that attends. We also believe that um this information and tools can be um brought back to strengthen our internal programs and share with other jail social workers, not only within
Crowing County, but in our region. I would ask for your approval to use current training budgets to cover the above expenses and authorize staff attendance to an outofstate travel conference. Any questions? >> Yeah. U Madam Chair Tammy, who's who's
all going who who do you have uh on the docket to go? >> Uh we would be having Anna Anderson from our uh social work team over at the jail attend. >> Okay. Madam Chair, just one question. Does this meet Minnesota requirements for
continuing education credits? >> It will meet continuing educ education credits for our staff person. they would be able to get continuing education credits. Yep. That's >> all I got. >> Madam Chair, if there's no other questions, I would make the motion to
approve the out of state travel request for N to the National Conference on Correctional Healthc Care. >> You have a second. >> I'll second that, Madam Chair. >> Motion by Commissioner Bros, second by Commissioner Lupkey. All those in favor?
I >> opposed. Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Land services. >> Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners. We have three items for your consideration this morning. The first request today is for a land use
map amendment for parcel number 90030510 located in section 3 of St. Mias Township. Uh the request is to amend the land use map from agricultural forestry to rural residential 10 involving approximately 35 acres. If we go to the
locator map and zoning map on page 55. So we got St. Matias Road here and then um this is Corner Trail here. If you go down a little bit, scroll just a little bit, we can see again. So the zoning that you see here, this area that is in blue is a real residential five. The
area in green is our agricultural forested, which is the current zoning designation, which is a 35 acre minimum. This is the um a uh the shorland district for a small stream. And then the area to the north that you see, why there's no zoning on that is because that is in Crowing Township. And the
zoning in this area in Crowing Township is primarily agricultural forestry which is similar to the green zoning here. Um the the what the uh applicant is really looking to do is to take the the 35 acres and create a basically a 15 acre basically split it in half for the most
part is what they're looking to do. Uh the planning commission board of adjustment held a public hearing on June 18th of 2026 and they made a unanous recommendation to the board to approve the land use map amendment for parcel number 9003030510 from agricultural forestry to rural residential 10 involving approximately
35 acres. Uh they did develop a finding a fact for you which is located on page 66 of the packet. St. Matias Township did submit a letter on May 4th of 2026 which is in on page 63 of the packet as well. The township recommended denial. It wants to see any new lot created to
be at least 15 acres in size by ch if this uh if they were to um if you were to approve going to R10 here that would um allow them to basically um create the the two parcel the parcels that the township wants they wouldn't be able to make them any smaller. So the township
would support this uh I think in in theory because of the size of the parcels that would be created when they do the when they do the lot split here. So, uh, based on the application submitted, staff packet, public comments, and the finding effect is recommended to approve the land use map amendment as submitted. I'd be happy to
answer any questions. >> So, madam chair, a question. So, I guess I didn't understand your explanation that the township is opposed to it. sent a letter in opposition, but you said they're >> so what the township the township doesn't want anything less than 15 acres because that's what their comprehensive
plan states and that is the intent of the applicant is to create those larger tracks. So basically taking a lot and splitting in half. So it would mean if it was it went to R10, they would never be able to split it again. So if they were to create the take the 35 acres and and create the two larger lots, they
wouldn't be able to create anything smaller than that because the minimum lot size would be 10 acres. So it would still be in harmony with what St. Matias Township would want because of the size of the lots that they're proposing to do. >> So is it is the part Madam Chair? So the parcel's 35 acres.
>> Yep. >> If they split it in half that >> 17, you know, 1718 is is >> Why didn't they just do that? Couldn't they just done that over the counter? >> Well, they could, but the zoning was was agricultural forestry. So that would be a 35 acre. So they had to go to that real residential zoning to be able to
get it. So that's why they're here today. Well, I feel this is my district and I feel like I'm in kind of a quandry because the last time when Bill Marshall wanted to was going to split off part of his land, the township was just adamant and that was right next to this or right
>> R right couple 40s away. Correct. >> Yeah. And they were adamantly opposed to it and and um and then one of the township people was kind of bad mouthing me. Um so I I don't know. I I need to I guess I need to go along with the township and deny it.
Don't you think? And >> and Madam Chair, you know, Commissioner Coring, it's just, you know, the township is a recommend. They make the recommendation of the county board. We have the, you know, we have the, you know, the authority to make >> I know I know that, Chris. I'm just um
um I don't know. I just I'm a little bit troubled by this >> after the last thing that happened. Well, it's kind of confusing because they recommend denial, but they want 15 acres. It will be 15 acres. So, that would be approval.
>> Correct. >> That would be my take or question on it, too, is if if their concern is that it's they don't want it to be less than 15 acres and they're they're 15 acres that's meeting their need. So, it wouldn't be a denial. So a point of
reference too on this is that they submitted this um this information that that the letter before the development review team meeting. So they they didn't they submitted it very very very early in the process and so they they didn't they didn't submit it after the applica
the application had even been submitted the township had submitted that letter so it was very early in the process. I have, you know, the one who I spoke to on this was was Jim Ga who was one of the supervisors down there and he was the one who explained to me that they're they are not in support of it, but they
will be okay when I had spoken to him about if they if the lots are, you know, basically splitting the lot in half that the township would would be okay with that. >> Well, I'm still I'm still kind of kind of upset about the the Bill Marshall
thing and and now this is, you know, I I this is almost similar to that, you know, and so I but I I have a tremendous amount of respect for Ronnie Malinowski and so I will support this and um I
would move the the um approval of this. Madam Chair, >> I'll second it. >> Motion by Commissioner Coring, second by Commissioner Lee. Is there any more discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. The second request we have today is for the plenary plat of Adne Lake Conservancy for part number 6320512. This is located in section 32 of Fairfield Township. Uh the request is to prove a conventional design plenary plat
consisting of two lots. The total lot the parcel before subdividing is 38 acres and the plat is located on Adne Lake which is classified as a general development lake. If you go to page 72, we'll see the locator map. And you got
Adney here. You've got uh State Highway 6 over here. Um it's a little bit south of of up over there in the Cross Lake area. If we go to page 73, that's I'm sorry, the next page. There we go. So, basically, you've got
um a large tract. It's 38 acres and they are basically creating tract one and then the remainder here is tracked two. So basically just basically creating one riparian lot and a second lot over here. Um, just as a point of reference, there is a another application coming to the
planning commission this Thursday at the meet at their urgy scheduled planning commission meeting and they're going to be proposing to redevelop this lot into a um conservation design uh where they would have um a lot here and then um the couple lots here and that there would be
a total of four um four lots that they would be proposing to replplat this. And so that is that'll be before the planning commission um on Thursday, but they needed to go through this process first to create the two lots. So then they could basically replplat that into Adil Lake Con conservancy first edition.
So the planning commission did hold a public hearing on June 18th, 2026 and made a unanimous recommendation to the board to approve the plenary plat of Addy Lake Conservancy for partial number 60320512. The planning commission to develop the finding effect for your reference on
page 88 of the packet. There was no comment from Fairfield Township. Based on the application submitted, staff packet, public comments, and the finding of fact is recommended to approve the plenary plat as submitted. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Madam Chair,
uh, a couple questions for you. First of all, if they're going to come back to replplat this again, why didn't they do that to begin with? >> We needed to create this plat first so that they would then be able to come back. We had to create two separate lots so that they would be able to replplat that second lot which would be this lot
too. >> And so because this so it's it was basically we had to do the conventional design to create that lot and then they come back and then they replant this into that into that conservation design. >> So they wouldn't have been able to do three to begin with. They had to have to
have one or split it into two first >> just for just for clean just for just for making it a clean and and clear development of the property. it it made sense to go through this this process for it. >> Okay. And then the other question I've got is um we spoke yesterday a little
bit about there was uh correspondence from someone that lived in the area that had some concerns and um we discussed this. Can you just touch base on those concerns? >> Correct. Absolutely. So uh there's there's a couple variance requests that'll be before the planning
commission on Thursday. One is that there's a um an existing trail that comes down to the lake here that's 20 feet wide. The ordinance requires that to be 50 feet wide. The area that you see here in gray are all wetland areas. And uh and and so um the the ordinance
so this is going to be an area where the lots that would be back in this here are going to be able to have access down to the lake with a with one common dock. So that is one variance request instead of so we don't want to fill in wetlands to make that path bigger. We want to the 20 ft is is ample. The other one is that there is a road that as it comes down
through here that comes down into here and we're just clarifying as part of this that the road doesn't meet lake setbacks but it's existing and it was actually was gone through the permitting process back in the um mid70s and so we're just getting that clarified as part of the process so that everybody understands that that is allowed to
continued use to to get access to come down to this point down in here. So those are the two main parts of the variance. Uh the reality is is that with Adne Lake being a general development lake, um the applicant could come in and create 100 foot wide lots all the way
down the shoreline here and then they come in and apply for permits for boardwalks to go across 100 ft of wetlands to get out there. So this is a very good use of the property. It's very it's a great use of uh of the conservation design um platting process that we have in the ordinance and uh it
really does maximize the the the hive parts the the really the good ground on the property and it eliminates um the um any sort of interaction or or filling in wetlands or having any disruption to the existing wetlands on the property.
>> Okay. said just um for clarification basically then that the one access to one point is going to basically make it so there's one dock one place to go versus a dozen or more on that. >> Absolutely. And I know one of the one of
the questions that had come up was about um you know potential loon nesting and what this does is it will protect any loon nesting out there because there's going to be one that access here and there's already an existing beach there that's not a lon nesting location. There obviously will be some noon listing noon
loom nesting opportunities, you know, on these wetland areas, but they're not going to be that's going to be a protected part of the plaid and will be part of the protected common open space. >> Okay. And then I'm assuming that 20 foot access you're talking about is the the existing road that was from
>> correct >> 50 years ago, right? >> Correct. Exactly. >> Okay. So, we're actually going to be doing better by using what was there versus creating something new. >> Correct. and having because otherwise the other option would be to be filling in wetlands and going through the wetland replacement plan process and purchasing credits and there would be no
value gained um by doing that. >> Yep. And then the uh I'm assuming that the DNR is 100% behind that. They're all they're good with all this. >> Yep. They've been notified of the they've been notified of the request and as of uh today we hadn't received any comments from them either for or against
the proposal. So >> yep, that's all I've got. Um, so when they get that access to lake and they're going to use that kind of as an outlot then and in that conservation easement, will those people all have part of that outlot or that where the
>> So what'll Yeah, exactly. Miss uh Christy, what will happen is all there'll be postage stamp lots in here for where people can be able to develop and put, you know, put dwellings on and then the remaining part will be common open space. there'll be a homeowners association and they're going to they will manage they'll each have a an
interest in that area of which the this path coming down the lake will be one. >> Um and then you know getting down into here that'll all be part of the of the common open space. Yeah. >> When it comes to docks as we ran into up in I think Breezy or whatever where there was like an old resort and they
were wanting to separate it. How is that dock going to be? Does each person get a moing on the dock? You put a dock out for each person or >> there will be one there will be one dock that comes out of this location here. This will be separate. So this is going to have its own dockage and and that but this there'll be one and then each of
the residential lots there will have one mooring spot to have on >> one common dock and a >> one common dock and then each and then each of the dwelling sp sites on it will have a moing spot on >> spot on it. Correct. Okay. >> Yep. >> And that'll be coming to you at your at
a meeting in August. And that's something that's set up in we have an or a dock ordinance and it's set up in the dock ordinance to do that. So it's >> set up. Yeah. The land use ordinance has requirements for when we have conservation design how many boat slips they can have in that. Yeah. And like I said, they could they could put more out
there if they wanted to. They're being pretty um pretty conserved with the number of lots that they're proposing for the site. Well, >> they could always come back and ask for it again. >> They could always come back and ask for more. Absolutely. >> Thank you. That's all I had. >> Any other questions?
Can I have a motion? >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll second that. >> Motion by Commissioner Lee, second by Commissioner Lebkkey. All those in favor? >> I I >> opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. >> Thank you. The last thing we have is the Northwood reliability project, and Tom's
going to come up and explain that. Good morning again, uh, Madam Chair and commissioners. Thank you for your time. Uh, a couple, uh, things for you today. Uh, the, uh, relations to the Northern Reliability Project. Um, back on June 16th, you had heard from representatives from Minnesota Power and Great River
Energy about some easements related to the transmission line that were needed to uh, facilitate that that line to come through the county. um that extends from the southern borders of Crowing County up to about the Mississippi River. Uh they'll be back next year again from the
Mississippi River to the northeastern part of the county for additional easements. Um so the uh yeah, those were discussed in June 16th. And then um the second part of this is also a budget amendment. Um and that was discussed at the July 9th budget committee. um part of the uh the Northland liability
project. It's 172 acres of new rightway easements for that power line. And the value of those easements came to $453,800. Um that value was determined by a certified appraisal by Stigerwalt Land Services, Inc. Um we can go to page Oh,
let's wait back there. Um, as I mentioned, uh, you know, we have the we have a budget amendment in your packet that you heard for the $453,000, uh, page 164, I believe, please. Um, our proposal, uh,
for that $423,000, $800 is is for reforestation um from the Flanders Lake Fire. So, up here is a map. Um, you can see on this map um, these blue shaded areas are DNR lands. The red shaded areas are private properties and then this area that is
not shaded is county administered lands. Um and then you'll see this kind of yellow box around some of these. That is the extent of the fire that um had an impact to the county lands. Uh everything in that in that box uh has
died. All the trees have died. Uh it's about 910 acres and when we did a calculation to see what the value of those trees were throughout their lifetime was about a 4.6 6 million loss in revenue. Uh these are some photos. I just thought it would be good to show the day after
the fire that that Sunday staff were out um starting to look at the areas and and put together an assessment. Um you honestly they looked kind of black and white. Uh just the sheer uh severity and and really devastation of of the fire was quite impressive. Um you like I
said, you'd think these photos are in black and white. They're not. Uh like I said, this was the day after the fire, so things have started to green up and things look a lot different. Um and the fire did have some um difference in severity. So these these are both areas that were in that yellow shaded box. Um
unfortunately, red pine don't do extremely well when they're this young with fire. Um when they start to get to be, you know, 50, 60, they they handle fire a little bit better. Um staff was out with uh DNR professionals, retired foresters, and our area forest health
specialists with the DNR to assess these areas to make sure that they actually did die. Um a lot of these trees have since turned yellow. The stuff that had needles on it, as you can see in this picture, um has has started to die and has become infested with bark beetles. So, it's been our priority to try to get
these areas cleaned uh as quickly as possible. The one advantage of the fire is that there's no more ticks. So that's a plus. Uh silver lining, right? Um it was also quite impressive. The fire did jump the river. Um which was uh was quite surprising to me. Uh you know, if
you know the Pine River, it's it's pretty wide. Um and we had some some losses on the other side of the river, mostly uh in oak stands. Everything on the the west side of the river would have been red pine. Uh we were back here um to authorize a
special timber sale. We had that timber sale on June 1st. uh staff prepared uh eight separate tracks. Um unfortunately only two of those eight tracks sold. Those two of the eight that sold were older timber and so it was not scorched as bad. Um but the tree still died. It
just ultimately meant that um the mills could utilize that timber better. Um one of our main red pine buyers, pot latch, was not able to utilize any of the wood. Um that soot really is a problem. Um when they so when Potlatch um does their
process, they they take the slabs and they chip them and bring them up to the Packaging Corporation of America, International Falls, where they get turned into cardboard boxes. And so that soot on that bark um will discolor the boxes and so it becomes unusable. So um
really it was a it was a challenge to figure out where does this wood go? How do we use it? Um so thankfully we were able to sell two of these tracks. They were 182 acres. Um the bid value was about $41,000. Since then, staff have been working um
with our area loggers to try to sell uh other areas informally uh over the counter. We've been able to sell 307 acres. About half of that has been cut to date. Um we're selling it for a dollar a truckload. It uh you know, it's not worth as much um to the logger and
so we don't see as much back. Most of this wood is going to savannah, the bolt type material, the larger type material, and they're going to saw it into pallets. So, those this white um this white hatched area here, that is what has been
sold to date. Um if you remember the fire extent on this side of the road was about right in here. The stuff that you see that's that is um not hatched, um that is just younger trees and so there's no bolt material in that tree. So the logger is not able to utilize any
of it. This is kind of what we're seeing out here today. Um you'll see uh this is one of the timber sales that was on the map. Um these here would be the bolt type material that's going to go to Savannah pallets. And then this material here is all the pulp, the smaller type material.
Normally this would go to be shaved for animal bedding, but because of the soot, the animals can't handle that. So it's being left in the woods. Just just another uh image of a different operator. This operator is able to uh chip. So he's taking all the
bolt material, running that to Savannah pellets, and then he has a chipper and they're delivering that material to Cloquet Sappy uh for hog fuel to fire the burners at the mill. But um only so many operators have a chipper. Um so we're thankful that they did buy some of this and and things are starting to get
cleaned up a little bit a little bit better. Um just another picture showing, you know, what this area kind of looks like right now. Lots of trees laying everywhere starting to get cleaned up. Uh moving forward, our next steps, uh we're going to try to continue offer
these informal sales to loggers. Um if we keep getting rain, uh you know, these these become more attractive because it's nice sandy ground. Loggers can really work in there any time of the year. Um we'll probably sell some more here this this coming spring and we have about 110 acres remain that are left be
merchantable. um those areas that we do timber harvest and all that slash is left, that pulp that are in the woods, we're going to root rake and pile with a dozer. Um your bottom left here, this is a root rake. Basically goes on the front of a dozer and they they push all that slash up into a pile. Um we need to do
that so that way we can come back and reforest these areas. Um if we leave those big mats mats of slash, they'll never grow any trees. Uh once we once we have these areas cleared and rip raed, um we will start doing some disc trenching. That's what
this machine here on the right is. It's pulled by a skiitter. It's got two big wheels that spin in opposite directions and it makes a furrow. It moves all the sod off, moves any branches, any sticks, leaves, that type of thing. It makes a small microclimate for when we come back and plant those trees. They're a little bit shaded. They have a little bit more
moisture. This area is very sandy, so any moisture we can get in the ground and hold in the ground will help those trees. Uh moving forward, um this winter and next winter we're going to uh roller chop approximately 260 area 260 acres.
Um this picture here is a roller chopper. Kind of think if you're making pasta, a rolling pin. It's a big rolling pin with knives on it. And so what they'll do, you can kind of see these are healthy trees in the background, but that's kind of similar to what we have out there except they're dead. They will run these areas over and lay all those
trees flat and they'll size them up into two to threeft chunks. Um so that way we can come back and plant those areas. Otherwise um we won't have an ability to come back and plant. Uh for the spring of 27 after we um after we do some our roller chopping and some of our dish
trenching, we're hoping to plant approximately 100 to 250,000 seedlings. Uh when we order seedlings, we have to order them a year and a half in advance. So come August, we'll be ordering seedlings for 2028. So we've reached out to the DNR forest nursery nursery and
PRT. They're our containerized seedling grower. They're out of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Canada uh for any extras they may have for this year. Um to try to source jack pine, red pine, white pine, and some spruce. Um in the areas where there is hardwood regeneration
that is coming back. Um it's kind of neat. There are some areas that have oak that are already 5t tall. They've they've really come back. Um you know, these these areas are are more sparse than we'd like them to see. So, we're going to interplant those areas with some jackpine. That'll be a more natural
type setting. What you would have seen here um you know, 50, 60, 70 years ago. In those areas that were predominantly straight red pine, all we have coming back is hazel. Um hazel will just won't grow a tree. Of course, it'll be it'll be just a brushy shrub. And so, we have
to replant these areas back into conifers. Um that's what's meant to be here. The soils are sandy. Um, we're going to try to focus our our planting and and incorporate a little bit of diversity. Most of the areas we planted are red pine with a mix of jack, white,
or spruce depending on the soil type and location. Um, trying to get this area reforested. In in these pine plantations, there's not a lot of seed for trees. Um, often times when we cut red pine, you have to plant pine back because they don't naturally regenerate, especially after something like this that came through and it was
so hot. Um, there's not much seed left. Uh so we'll continue on uh next fall bud capping those trees that we plant. We will disc trench the remaining acres that we're going to clear this winter with the roller chopper. And then spring of 2028 we plan to finish planting all
910 acres. Um staff have put together some costs that you can see up here. Uh our total estimated cost is about 434,000. That's going to vary a little bit. These are rough numbers the staff put together based on previous contracts of this type of work we've had done in communications with contractors that can
do this work. And so, uh, with these easements from the Northland Reliability Project and the budget amendment, uh, we're requesting that, um, 453,000 is used, uh, from that Northland Reliability Project easement to help
cover these costs. >> Madam Chair, thank you for for that information. and I appreciate it. One question for the sheriff. Would you update us on the investigation into who set this off? >> I sure can.
>> Yes, please. >> Uh, currently we have uh we have one family that's in involved in the uh that we believe is involved. He's they've been uncooperative, but it was a you know a 72 year old guy that came up with his kids and grandkids and uh I'm not
sure if they were going to make s'mores or what have you, but uh they uh they they started this small fire and then from there it it it escalated. Where it goes from here um I'm not very hopeful because they've lawyered up and have not been um in contact. They won't talk to
us anymore. So >> Okay. I appreciate it. You know, this is a big cost to the county and the taxpayers of Crowing County. So, I it just concerns me that that we have some updates periodically to >> Yep. Interestingly enough, uh if we
would have uh charged uh the person with the starting that fire, I mean I mean basically it would have been a petty misdemeanor. I think uh what we would have gotten out of it and it had it would have had been a civil case that we would have had to take against them to recoup any of the finances that we've
lost in this or any other party that lost money in it. So >> I'm guessing they don't have $4.6 million. >> That's correct. Exactly. Yep. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. If there's no other >> Madam Chair,
>> we got lots of questions on that side of the table. >> You go. >> Go ahead. >> No, you go ahead. Commissioner, >> just uh for clarification, I think I I had gotten my numbers messed up at some point based off of what I'm seeing up there. Are
it's 453,800 that we're getting from these easements. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. I was thinking those numbers were backwards. All right. Thank you. Madam Chair, um I did take a a drive through there uh with my wife the other
night and drove through there. It was a little little hectic, but but unbelievable how many of those small trees are just gone, you know, and there's just nothing we can do about it. Just just a loss, but it was really amazed that is the ground has come back. I mean, there's all kinds of stuff out there. I don't know what it's going to
be like in the next couple years for blueberries, but I mean, that might be one positive thing to look at. Um it just is it just is a you go out there the devastation is just unreal and it's just a a tragedy. But are we managing
anything when we come into red flag warnings on our on our property? I know something was talked about it. I don't know if anything's formal that we close our areas off. Is there any way we can do that uh when it's a red flag like they're doing right now in the Boundary Waters where they're saying absolutely
nobody go in there just because of that accident? And I don't think that person intentionally tried to set a fire, but it happens because we're open to allowing people to be on our public lands, which that's why they're public lands. So, yep. >> Yep. Madam Chair, Commissioner Lupkkey, we currently don't. Um, staff have the
ability to go out and close the gates on forest roads per your policy for the forest management plan anytime we deem fit. Um, it's something that we're going to be discussing tomorrow at the natural resource advisory committee meeting with our recreational use ordinance update. Um, and so maybe in the future, but
nothing as of right now that says when there's a red flag warning, we will go out and close these gates. >> I mean, it still can happen. People will still go out there, but at least we have something on record to say that this is not a time to be out in those woods, especially especially in a pine forest.
Okay. Thank you. That's all I had, >> Madam Chair. If there's no other questions or concerns, I would make the motion to approve the attached budget amendment and easements for phase two of the Northland Reliability Project and to
also authorize the board chair to sign said easements. >> I'll second it. >> Motion by Commissioner Bar, second by Commissioner Corring. All those in favor? I >> I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, uh commissioners and uh guests. Uh thank you. Uh we've had a lot of it's been busy summer. Um we've had some really some tragedy as well uh that we that our folks have been uh having to be
witnessed to. And um we want to keep our uh staff in their uh in your prayers, please. Uh, also there's, you know, we've had a lot of uh deaths that have been uh not so uh not so good for our uh staff or for the community for that
matter. So again, uh anybody that's struggling uh with mental health issues, please reach out to 988. Um I um I start out telling you that because it has been one of uh one of the biggest uh we're supposed to have fun in
the summertime and it's it's been uh kind of tragic in some cases uh the stuff that we've had to uh witness. But other than that, um our guys are uh continuously uh staying busy. If you go into our parking lot, there's hardly a car in there. It's just admin vehicles
at this point. And and it's been that way uh for most of the summer. So, the guys are out uh actively working and um taking care of uh business. Uh our boat and water has been uh very busy. We've had uh several hundred uh contacts with
uh Boers and uh we haven't issued any uh uh driving while intoxicated. Uh we've issued some minor consumptions um and stuff like that. Uh but for the most part, we've been very fortunate uh that we've hadn't had any big accidents or
anything like that. So, uh that's been been very good. Um with that, I that's all I have for you. If you have any questions for me or uh any concerns or compliments, please. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate you
guys. >> Thank you. Thank you. County attorney online. >> Madam Chair, Kelsey is in court today, but assistant attorney Shook is online. If anyone has anything for her or if she has anything. >> I do not have anything, but if anyone
has any questions, I am more than happy to answer them. >> Oh, good to go. >> Thank you. County Administrator. >> Madam Chair, I have several items for you today. The first is the senior
management team report. At yesterday's meeting, as you can probably imagine, we spent the entire two hours talking about the 2027 budget as we are working through that process and we'll continue to do so. So that took a lot of discussion at yesterday's meeting and we
are continuing to work to get it to a level that it'll be ready to present to you all at an upcoming budget committee meeting. The second item I have for you today is to schedule a public hearing to amend the water surface use ordinance.
Uh the county attorney and the county sheriff's offices have been working together. There are a couple of amendments they would like to bring forward in the water surface use ordinance. And in order to do so, we have to have a public hearing to amend any of our ordinances. So, the requested action before you today is to approve
setting a public hearing on Tuesday, July 28th, 2026 at 9:05 a.m. for the purpose of discussing amendments to the water surface use ordinance. >> Madam Chair, I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by Commissioner Barrow, second by
Commissioner Coring. All those in favor? I >> for that. Um, are we going to have a draft copy of that before that public hearing? >> Madam Chair, Commissioner Lubkey. Yes, there will be. It's being worked on by the attorney's office right now. >> Thank you. >> All those in favor?
>> I >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, commissioners. The next item is to schedule a public hearing to change an unnamed body of water to Little Spirit Lake. Uh back in
late 2025, we had received a petition to change the name of an unnamed lake. However, the DNR had provided word that the lake name they were proposing would not be approved because there was already a lake or two or 10 with that
particular name. So, the public hearing that was scheduled for December was postponed. Um, additionally, we have now received a new petition on June 15th to change the name from an unnamed lake in Dearwood Township to Little Spirit Lake.
The statute requires that the county board must set a time, date, and location for a public hearing to take public comment on renaming an unnamed lake. and it also needs to be published in the designated newspaper for three weeks prior and provided to the
commissioner of the DNR to schedule this particular item. What we are looking for today is to schedule a public hearing pursuant to Minnesota statute 83A.06 to be held August 11th, 2026 at 9:05 a.m. to change the name of an unnamed
body of water in Dearwood Township to Little Spirit Lake. Madam chair, quick question for the administrator. It only specifies spirit leak. >> It I just saw that it should be little spirit is what it is on the petition. >> Okay. So that's what we'd be approving. >> That's what you would be approving.
>> And with that, I'll make the motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Motion by Commissioner Barrow, second by Commissioner Lee. All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. Madame Chair, the next item on the agenda is an appointment to the county
HRA. If you recall at your June 9th meeting, you accepted the resignation of Michael Ali from the Crowing County HRA. Commissioner Lee would like to appoint Trevor Goodsman to replace Michael Ali as the District 5 representative on the Crowing County HRA. This would be for a
term expiring December 31st of 2026. So, it's filling out the current term that is unexpired and then Mr. Mr. Goodman would be available for reappointment should Commissioner Lee choose to do so effective January of 27. And then further we would request a certificate
of appreciation be prepared for Mr. Ali. >> We'll make that motion for both. >> I'll second. >> Motion by Commissioner Leak, second by Commissioner Barrows or no, Commissioner Lubkkey. >> All right. >> I don't know who was insulted by that.
>> All those in favor? I >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. >> Madam Chair, the next item I have before you is the Northland Arboritum land acquisition project. You may recall in March of 2025, you had designated a resolution of support to designate
Northland Arboritum as a regional park and then also passed a resolution of intent to purchase 115.9 acres from Northland Arboritum. Um, also last summer in July, the executive director of the arboritum was before you and you
approved a resolution authorizing the application for a grant to the Greater Minnesota Legacy Funds. We currently own 87.9 acres within the boundaries of the Northland Arboritum that are on a 100-year lease to the arboritum for recreational purch purposes. And then
with the designation of the arburitum as a regional park, what is being requested now is to transfer ownership of that additional 115.9 acres within the arburitum's boundaries to the county. And if the county is
successful in securing legacy grant dollars, so that is to the grant would be to basically for the county to purchase those properties from the Northland Arboritum. Those additional acres would then be leased to the arboritum under a new 100red-year lease
agreement which would bring that total acreage that would be under lease to 203.8 acres. The grant that was submitted in 2025 was unsuccessful mainly because there was no county skin in the game. There was no county match funding grant funding for that
particular grant. The um option before you is a one-time non-precedented setting match that would be equal to 5% of the final appraised value to be acquired of that of the 115.9 acres to be acquired. That would not exceed
$30,000. Uh you previously heard that the easement appraisal for the Northland reliability easements for the power line easements came in at $453,800. The previous budget amendment that you
made earlier this morning for the reforestation of the mission property. Um there was an additional $30,000 that would be available from that easement payment. Should you choose to provide a one-time non-precedented setting grant match from this application, the staff
would recommend that the additional $30,000 from that easement payment would be utilized for that purpose. I believe there are representatives from the arboritum in the audience if any of you have any questions of them.
Otherwise, the ask today is to approve the intent to purchase and the funding resolution, both of which you had previously done for the prior grant application. And now, because it will be a new grant application, we need to take that action again. And if you show
choose to provide the $30,000 match, we would also ask you to approve the budget amendment for that $30,000 from the Northland Reliability Easement amount. Madame Chair, so there is no levy dollars involved in this at all. It is
just it it's it still is tax dollars because it's everybody's tax, but there's no levy dollars involved in this. Once we get that if if it's successful, we end up with that land or does the ARB end up with that land? How does that
It's a little confusing in here the way it's >> Madame Chair, Commissioner Lubkkey, the county would be the owner of the land similar to the other property that we currently own within the arboritum's boundaries and a special use deed would be assigned to the arboritum to utilize
it for recreational purposes for 100 years. >> Is there a lease then that would be and and is that lease just a dollar or what is the normal >> no fee? >> No fee. Correct. A lease at no fee. Correct. >> Okay. We could put a lease. >> It's basically a special use deed. So, I
don't know that it actually gets as detailed as a lease, but it's essentially what it is. >> Could you actually put a a value on that? >> You could if you chose to do so. >> Yeah. Just just asking. >> Madam Chair, >> what?
>> Okay. Madam Chair, so I guess my question, Deb, is it's going to be county land. And if you remember, our county parks are free. At least last time I checked, they're free. But to go to the arboritum, I think you got to be
a member, and you have to pay to go to the arboritum. So people are going to not be able to really access this land without paying a membership at the arboritum. I think that goes contrary to what the county board
wants to do with our park system. >> Madame Chair, Trevor or Dan, could one of you talk speak to your funding as far as user fees or memberships? >> Yep. Uh Trevor Pumnia 623 Willow. Uh thanks, Madam Chair and commissioners. Uh we do have a small day use fee for
utilizing the Northland arburedom grounds. Um, we are supported, we are a member-driven organization. So, to maintain our property and our facilities, we do have a member uh membership detail. Um, for veterans, seniors, and children, it's $5 for a day
use fee. And for a standard adult day use fee, it would be $10. If you become a member of the Northland Arboritum, uh, it's $50 a year for an individual or 20 for a student. Um, CLC students get a free membership to the Northland Arboritum. With your arburitum
membership, you also are a member of 315 reciprocal arburedum in North America. So we work with uh arburedoms all over the country and all over North America. Uh as part of this reciprocal admission program, um we are one of the most affordable arburetums in the region and
it essentially helps us the day use fees and the membership account for about 20% of our operating costs. We also operate on levy dollars as well. Um, consequently, the levy dollars will be used in your application for this funding as well. So, the city of
Brainard will have approximately $60,000 for this application as well. So, the state really does like to see cities, counties, nonprofits, municipal organizations working together on these acquisition deals. So, I thought that I'd add that note. >> And Madam Chair, just for clarification,
the levy is from the city of Brainard, not from Crowing County. The arburitum does not receive any levy dollars from Crowing County. >> Thank you. >> Right. And so then a question on that. Um I believe it's about $90,000 that's levy dollars from the city of Brainer that goes to the arburetum. Am I correct?
>> It's it's a bit close to 100,000 this year as as the base changes. >> But the citizens, Madam Chair, so the citizens of Brainer that are paying that, they can't go there for free, can they? >> No, they would not be able to go there for free. >> They can't go for free. Okay.
Yeah. >> So the and just add to this um you know the center in Brainard as well, the senior center that also receives levy dollars. They're also a member-driven organization, right? We're structured very similarly to those organizations. Uh the levy helps support what we do,
but it doesn't f it nowhere nearly fully funds our operations. The only thing is Trevor is there's there's just in Brainer there's a lot of you know there's a lot of people that are lower income and when their property taxes go up I always mentioned Grandma
Johnson or Grandma Ericson or whoever it is they they you know when their taxes go up to pay $100,000 to the arboritum and they never go there and then if they did go
there they'd have to pay a membership fee. I don't know. That doesn't that doesn't work for me. So, I will be voting no on this. Probably the only one that's voting no. But, um just don't I just don't agree with u you know, we Trevor, you told us before when you came
to us and you said never going to be any money. That's the bill of goods I was sold. And if that was if if I would have known that this was going to come up, I'd have never supported it to begin with. So, I'm just letting you know. I'm going to I'm going to be voting no. And I think I hope people understand why. I
don't I don't have anything. You know, you more power to you, but it just doesn't fit the philosophy that I think the county board should have with our park system that's free and people use it like crazy. At least my little park I
see. And I will say 14 years ago, I was absolutely against parks for Crowing County. Absolutely totally opposed to it until I moved from St. Matias, which I would say St. Matias is a free park. 120
acres, trails in there, and it's free for anybody that wants to go there. Um, but once I moved over to South Long Lake and and I drive by Little South Long Lake Park, I am shocked the amount of cars that are there and people are using
it. Kids are swimming in the river and they're enjoying it and there's no charge for them there. So anyway, nothing against you, just doesn't fit my philosophy and I think the philosophy of of my constituents for the most part. >> Thanks, Commissioner.
>> So, Madame Chair, if I might, I I would probably push back a little bit on that, Commissioner, because we have maintenance that goes into all of our parks. There would be no maintenance with the arboritum. So that maintenance cost goes on and on and on whether we
take it out of our our uh dollars when we we knock down the trees and that there there is a cost that goes to the taxpayers indirectly because the public lands are their lands. So there is a a cost and here we're asking an
organization to run a piece of property which is a beautiful piece of property within the confines of Brainard and Baxter um former dump. Nobody's ever going to do anything with that dump. I can guarantee you that. So we have an
opportunity to invest in Commissioner Franzine's district. Not mine. I know I'm one of the bigger advocates for it, but I think we have an opportunity for a one-time batch of money, I guess. I don't know how else to say it, to push this into a
a position where it can go after grants out there to operate it. And I think it's a a great piece of land within this area to throw a few dollars in there compared to what we've spent on other
parks in Crowing County. Millions of dollars and we'll have ongoing costs with those. So there is a cost that goes with all of our county parks also. And with that, I'll end my conversation at this point,
unless somebody wants to push back and then I'll reserve my right to come back. Adam, >> Madam Chair, >> I wouldn't have expected anything else from you. >> We'll give Commissioner Barrow something to chew on here so he can try to push back. Um, Administrator Ericson, I still
need some help with some math here. The easement is getting us 453. Our estimate for the reforestation is 434. That's roughly 19. How did we get to 30? Where's that money coming from?
>> The easement. I got to go back to the previous agenda item. >> Comes the money. So the >> well so what you're looking that's okay if you want >> so excuse me the easement payment is 453800
the expenditure amount for the reforestation is 423800 so there was some cost the estimate as you heard Tom mention earlier the estimate of 434ish for the reforestation is is basically
based on an estimate. Um those numbers are still going to be changed and there are some additional dollars that would go to pay for that reforestation project as well if need be. The the budget amendment that you previously approved
was to note the revenue amount of 453800 from the easement and designate $423,800 for the reforestation project. So that leaves a gap of $30,000 that would be available from that revenue.
>> Okay. So I'm I'm going to uh Well, first of all, Trevor, what you're doing out there is fantastic at the arburitum. I've been out there and you drove me around, showed me what's going on. You're doing a fantastic job. I have no no issues
there whatsoever. Um I will say I agree with Commissioner Coring. That was one of the notes that I wanted to bring up is and we approved last year to be your fiscal agent for this because you weren't coming back for money ever. You just needed us to be the fiscal agent and now year later we're being
asked for 30,000. And um even though that's not levy dollars, that's still taxpayer dollars. Um, my personal belief is I think that, you know, the the the 434 is an estimate. That doesn't mean that that's what it's
going to come in at or it's going to come in at less than that. Um, we could very well come in higher than that. And I believe that those dollars would probably be used in that project um,
no matter what. Um, I believe there's also been discussion. Um, I think staff has been working on a potential uh county park in that same area. So, I don't know that
putting that money into this is going to benefit our taxpayers in in any way. I think we're going to be better off to use all of these funds for the reforestation project because that's what's going to be that project
is what's going to be what pays for our county parks 50 years from now. Should have started paying for it next year, but because of the forest fire, we need to be thinking about our future generations and how they're going to take care of these parks. And so I'm I'm not in favor of this at the moment
either. So, >> thanks, Commissioner. Madam Chair, um when we're looking at this, we're looking at only if we get the grant that we would be utilizing the 30,000, right? That's correct. If we're
turned down from the grant, there's no money going anywhere. So, this is our seed money and it's only 5% of the valuation of that property. Correct. >> Correct. You know, so it's our skin in the game to try to get us up to a higher picking. When they pick grants, it looks
better when you do that as it has in past when we try to collaborate with other communities, other anything. That's what they look at when they're looking at it. I don't see the just bec if we didn't have a fire, if we wouldn't had that fire and have that looking at
reforestation, would this would this be then a question if we would put the $30,000 against it? I'm definitely for it because where are you going to get a chance where you can pick upund and some acres for for 5% and it still ends up in the county as as that acreage and and
however it's being used. You know, your fee structure can be changed if it had to be at the ARB. That's something that could be changed. So, I'm definitely for it. It's it's it's it's um it's a roll of a dice and we won't even have to be committed unless we get the grant. So, I don't know why we
wouldn't even try it because right now we're saying we don't even want some people don't even want to try it here on the board. >> Thanks, Commissioner. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. Just to bring a little more context to what I was saying earlier, I want to point out that the park system that we've created, which I think land
services has done a terrific job. Our parks are some of the in my estimation premier parks in the in the state, but we've spent $6.2 $2 million on those parks since I became a commissioner on average over the course of a year to
maintain those parks is about $105,000 a year. So there is a cost to doing maintaining these parks and keeping them up so people can enjoy them. So I bring those two numbers to you just because that's what we've invested in
our parks. $30,000 compared to 6.2 2 million. I know I'm probably going to get in trouble for this, but that's coffee change and it's a oneshot deal. There will be no maintenance. So, that 105,000 won't exist. We have a great opportunity
here to create something within the boundaries of Brainard and Baxter to draw more people into this area. We're always looking at economic development. That's what our park system in the entire county does. Brings people in.
The the fire tower up there and Milford Mine are two of the most utilized parks in our county. We have an opportunity here right within the the confines of the two cities to do the same thing. And I think it's
imperative that we move forward with this as a one-time investment. If there's no other questions or concerns, I'll make the motion to approve. >> And I will second that motion to approve.
>> Madam Chair, um I'm going to move an amendment to that where on the bottom of what you're looking at here where it says $30,000, if I can be as smart as I think I am,
whereas St. Matias Parks and Recreation has not received any dollars whatsoever from Crowing County. I now offer up this amendment to uh allocate $100,000 to the St. Matias Parks and Recreation.
That's after the $30,000 I offer that amendment to this resolution. >> Is there a second? >> Is there a second? >> I'll second it. Madam Chair, question to the
commissioner. Have they made a request? >> Well, I'm I'm their representative. I'm making a request as their request. >> Okay. >> So, there's not been other than Commissioner Coring's requ um request. There has not been a formal one from St.
Matias. They've done a great job. >> Right. Absolutely. >> So, that you can proceed with the vote if you wish. >> So, Madam chair, so this is the the vote would be on the amendment to the
resolution, which would be to add $100,000 in funding to the St. Matias Park. So that is the vote you're taking right now. >> Okay. Do we need a motion? >> You have a motion and a second for that. And so you just need to vote on that
amendment. >> Okay. On the amendment, all those in favor? >> I >> opposed. I >> I >> I >> motion fails on the uh northern arburetum
land acquisition project. >> So you have a motion and a second on the floor for that. So now you're taking the vote in that on that motion. >> All those in favor? >> I I >> I opposed. >> No. >> Motion carries.
>> Thank you, commissioners. Thank you. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. Commissioners, the next item I have before you is a request for participation in the property assessed clean energy program, also known as the minace program. Crowing County has
received a request from the St. Paul Port Authority on behalf of the property owner at 15 Washington Street to participate in the property assessed clean energy or MINPACE program. The MINPACE program is a nationwide program that is administered at the state level
to provide a financing tool for commissioner commercial property owners to fund energy efficiency improvements and it is administered by the St. Paul Port Authority under statute. Currently, there are 68 counties across the state that have joined the program. Property
owners apply to the Port Authority who is responsible for vetting the application for eligibility and securing private capital funding. There are no tax dollars that are associated with the funding of the projects themselves. The county's role is limited to special
assessment administration. This is basically a voluntary special assessment that the property owner asks to have placed on their property. The board would authorize a special assessment against the property, collect the assessment with the annual property taxes, and remit the collected
assessment to the St. Paul Port Authority. there would be increased um administrative effort. Although there's no financial risk or liability to the county, the administrative effort is similar to what occurs when municipalities certify special
assessments. Statute does allow for an administrative fee to be collected for special assessment administration. If the board were to choose to participate in the MINPACE program, a joint powers agreement would need to be entered into with the St. Hall Port Authority, which would allow the Port
Authority to consider applications throughout Crowing County regardless of which municipality it is it is located in. I believe that Holly Houston from the Port Authority is here in the audience if you would like to hear more information from her on this program or
if you have any questions from her. >> Where where is she? >> Holly, would you come up to the microphone, please? >> Morning. Good morning, chair and commissioners. Um, I'm Holly Houston from the St. Paul Port Authority and I'm the MINPACE program administrator. I'm
happy to review the program with you or if you have specific questions um you let me know um what your time permits and what you would like to know. >> Madam Chair, uh Holly, when it comes in when I see it, it says St. Paul Port Authority, it just kind of like we're
Crowing County. It it's a little confusing to me, but can you explain what this how did you end up with this in your quiver? >> Absolutely. Thank you, chair and commissioner. Um, so the St. Paul Port
Authority in 2009 uh went to the state legislature and advocated to start an energy loan program with Obama stimulus money, American Recovery Act funding. and we created there was a Excel energy territory and then a statewide fund
territory. Um and then the PACE statute was adopted in 2010. And at that time um we started to work with different counties and continue to use our energy financing program to do PACE loans
throughout the state. Um the advantage of having the St. Paul Port Authority at the helm is that we're the expert in the PACE program. we know the rules, so you don't have to have somebody at the county level that's your expert. You can refer to me and I work on your behalf.
Um, and so it's been a successful program. We have 485 loans across the state. Um, what I Let me just going to get it right. And then that's $372 million of energy
investments throughout the state that we've done since 2010. So the St. Paul Port Authority, the state law allows an economic development agency or a port authority to be the program administrator and because we started with that energy loan, we got into this
and have really become the expert state. >> Is it pretty much just solar or is there other things you're doing in the energy area? um this initial request in your county is a solar um project, but we do all kinds of requests. So, it can be for
any energy efficiency, that's renewables, um HVAC, insulation, lighting, windows. The state law also allows it to be used for new construction. So, if you're going to build something that's better than code, it would be PACE eligible. Um and then
resiliency measures such as fire mitigation or uh flooding uh even air quality, water quality are also eligible. Uh the assessment amount can be up to 30% of the property's value. We
require an energy study is uh completed by a an expert um illustrating that the project does meet energy savings. And then uh mortgage holder sign off is also required because it does go on the property tax bill and follows property
tax law. So it any defaulted amount is um placed in front of the mortgage and so we collect all those items as well as a petition from the property owner to place the assessment on their property on their behalf. So it's really a benefit to the property owner. Why would
somebody do this you might ask? Um so there's a deferred payment. So right now their first payment wouldn't be due until May of next year. So they can complete the solar, get it hooked up, start to realize those energy savings and use those savings to pay back the
loan. Um it is also comes across on a as an annual operating or annual operating expense versus like a long-term debt. So from an accounting perspective, there's some benefits and then it it's um also it can the loan term can be the useful
life of the equipment up to 30 years where sometimes if you were to go to a traditional bank and get a commercial loan, the terms are uh shorter. So this can match with their property investment. It can help with deferred maintenance. It's a great tool if you
don't have a the cash up front. You can get up to that 30% of your property's value. So you don't have to necessarily have cash up front. So we've done a lot of faith-based organizations or nonprofits when that boiler went down and they don't have the the savings to
invest in the property. Um, another question. U, Commissioner Coring and I are both on a a crowing power board and we have programs that we offer to our members, you know, for energy efficiency and stuff like that. But if you're not a member of the co-op, we don't offer it, you know, we don't
have it because that's the way it is. This would over bridge whether you're doesn't matter whether you're on municipal or investorowned utility or co-op or whatever it is, right? This b this bridges it all. >> Correct. It it is really like a financing tool. It is a special
assessment, but I like to think of it or explain it as a loan that you pay back on your property tax bill. So, it can work with other tools. Um, the St. Paul Port Authority, uh, our current building has a TIF loan, it has a PACE loan, it has a mortgage. Um, so you can couple it
with rebates that you might get from your utility company, um, and use other financing tools or grants. And so sometimes uh if there's federal, you know, tax credits or something like that, the property owner will make a big lump sum payment and and we'll be able
to, you know, reduce that bill for them when they get the tax credits. That's allowed as well. >> This will be a question for Gary. If if if I put a big solar array in my house or on my yard, does that change my taxes? It doesn't. So it doesn't doesn't say my value my property is worth more
because I've got energy efficiency items on it. So it it isn't going to change the tax as far as the countyy's concerned. Okay, that was just the question I had. That's all I had, >> Madam Chair. So Holly, so the program is
in essence a loan program. It's not there's no grant dollars that that it's it's all loaning it the money to these people to do this solar array and then they pay it back through an assessment on their property taxes. Correct.
>> Correct. That is correct. >> What is there any interest rate? >> Um yes. So the property owner has the ability to choose who they work with and who's providing that private capital. Um there's over 25 banks or capital
providers in that are working in the state of Minnesota. Um and so usually a lot of people come to me and then I'll look at their project and rightsize it uh and help them put in touch with somebody who's that who's lending that. So, I I believe this uh project is
working with uh Blaze Credit Union. Um and uh 10-year term would be 6% and a 14-year term is 6.25% right now. >> So, the port authority is in essence guaranteeing backing this
loan. >> Um so, the joint powers agreement that the county and and the St. Palport Authority into establishes the rules and responsibility saying that it's it's not your obligation. Your obligation is to
um assess the property. Anything that you collect, you send it back to me. And then my role is anything I get, I send back to the private uh provider. And then I have an agreement with the capital providers. Um, I am if the property owner does not pay them, I am
not on the hook to pay the lender either. So, we have protections in place that it's the property owner's um agreement and improvement and it's benefiting the property that that they live at. And so, this is just for it's
the benefiting property. It's not to make, you know, additional funding off of a solar array or something. But >> why, Madam Chair? So why, Holly, why wouldn't they just go get some solar panels and just go to their bank and and get a loan? Why what
is the benefit of going through you? Why what would be the reasoning for that? >> So the benefits with the PACE program is that it's a delayed first payment. Um that it can be a longer term than a traditional bank. it comes across as an
annual operating expenses versus a long-term debt on the balance sheet. Um, those are some of the primary uh reasons that somebody would come with a PACE loan. I in addition, as I mentioned, you don't have to have cash upfront. So, you
could potentially get 100% financing, which is a unique perspective that a bank wouldn't they would have some other collateral. The other benefit um is that it stays with the property since the improvement is benefiting that property. So if it were to sell the PACE loan can
stay on that property or it could be prepaid. So it provides a little more flexibility and it's not you're not providing a personal security. The security is the building and the property itself. Well, I appreciate all those answers and I I got to say that I'm going to be
voting no on this. And my reasoning for that is I got to tell you, I'm getting so gunshy of all these government programs. I don't know if you anybody watched Channel 5 last night, the legislature in their all infinite wisdom put together a program to help
businesses to the tune of about hund00 million. There's been a thousand applications. Channel 5 is investigated and they've done a request to see these applications. They've only received three applications, channel 5
investigation. And of those three, they're all fraudulent. And so there's just I all these programs, there's just seems to be no oversight whatsoever. And I'm just I'm
just wary of of more programs and ways for people to screw the taxpayers in essence. And um I just um I I'm just not going to support this. I'm just going to be kind of getting to the point where I'm anti-
programs. I think we got to just pull our horns back a little bit and and stop spending the taxpayers and throwing it around like it's candy. So nothing against you, Holly. >> No. Chair and commi commissioner, I respect your opinion. I would just say that that this isn't any taxpayer
dollars. The banks are underwriting these loans and doing their due diligence just as they would with a a commercial loan. Um and the the program has been established since 2010. There's no state dollars other than my loan fund
that I've revolved four times. Um yeah. Uh, so >> I I guess I don't Madam Chair, I guess I don't understand, Holly, then why why are you even Why is the Port Authority even doing this then? It It almost seems
like we're spending taxpayer dollars for your staff and you what I I just don't I can't understand what what it what it is. I mean, where I I Go ahead. Yeah. >> Uh, chair and commissioner. Um, so
program administrative fees, I can collect those to administer the program. So the the property owners are paying for my time and my staffing and s and salary. Um, so there are no taxpayer dollars that are contributing to this program. >> And so then so then I guess you know
when when somebody gets this loan and obviously it's a personal guarantee on on behalf of themselves and is coming out of their property taxes. What if they default on it? Then what happens? Does it keep coming off of their property
taxes, the payment or I I don't know. >> So, chair and commissioner. Um, so the the proper the loan is secured by the property and so and it does follow property tax law. So if there I will tell you out of the 485 projects there
has been one default um out of those that is a very low default rate. Um and what happens is it it follows property tax law. So if they don't make a payment it you send them a notice and then um after a year it becomes certified
delinquent with the state. there's a three-year cure period and then um then if that if it goes to forfeiture and my understanding from talking to some other counties that's very low rate as well um that then it would be wiped clean sold
the county would get their collections first then if there was anything less left the it would go towards the assessment payments um and then once it went back into private ownership I'd have the ability to put the the assessment back on the property.
>> Okay. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. I got a question or two. >> So, if if uh Port Authority is the point of contact on this, this is a federal program then or is it a state program?
>> It is adopted by state statute. It's a state program. So, okay. Um it's in 42 different states across the country. It's not a federal program. >> Okay, that's all right. That's where my confusion came from there. Um, and it's all private u bank funding that
goes through. There's no state dollars whatsoever involved with it. >> Correct. >> Okay. How about um there's obviously going to be some um staff hours involved from the county side. How does the county get reimbured
for that? >> Um so I would think of the St. Paul Port Authority as any other municipality that you work with like a city. So, whatever fees you pass on to them, you would pass on to me. >> Okay. And then I guess maybe my last question is for Gary. Hypothetical,
there's not a bank involved, becomes um tax forfeited, that loan is still there. Does that muddy the waters on in the tax forfeited process at all? Okay. Okay.
Thank you, >> Madam Chair. Just one other point to make. Um, you know, these are these are small generators, you know, to bring power back onto the grid or to use themselves. So, they're not taking power from the grid. Right now in the state of Minnesota, we do not produce enough
power in the state of Minnesota for the state of Minnesota. You know, we do not generate enough for our own usage. Um, the sun is generating enough for all of our usage. Um, right now we are buying power from, you know, for whatever power
company. I mean, buying it from the Dakotas, we're buying it from Canada, we're buying I think we're buying some from Wisconsin, but don't confirm me on that, but I think some of that power is coming from Wisconsin. Um, this at least gets us at least to a point, and it's
not we're being involved in it. We're running it. It doesn't even involve our co-op. Um, so I I think it's a it's it's a good way to do it. And I think you because you have the bank involved in it, I think the bank's going to watch their money pretty well. So I'm I
definitely will support it and I'll make a motion to do that whatever that motion is or where it's >> madam chair commissioner lovekkey. So there are actually two actions that we would be asking for. The action is to designate the St. Paul port authority to
implement administer the PACE program in Crowing County. And the second action is to certify the special assessment charges on the property at 15 Washington Street. >> So is that under the two mace ones here? the PACE ones. The resolution, >> the two resolutions that are in your packet.
>> Okay, I'll start out with the first one. U >> you can do them both together if you would like. You pull up. >> The resolution designating the port authority. I'll make that motion um to implement administrative the property assess clean energy improvement financing on behalf of the county and
providing the imposition of special assessments as needed in connection with the program. >> And then page 199. And then the next one would be the um certify certification of property assess clean energy pace charges for energy
improvements on 15 Washington Street. So that's a project that's in >> that's the project that the application is in place today. >> Okay. So the first resolution authorizes the joint powers agreement and authorizes the port authority to conduct and administer the program throughout
Crowing County. Anytime that they receive an application for a project, that project will come back to you for certification of those special assessments. >> Thank you. That's that's it. That was my motion. >> Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second?
>> I'll second it discussion. the county fees. >> Madame Chair, Commissioner Lee, currently the county does not charge special assessment fees to our municipalities for certification or administration of special assessments.
to charge a fee, we could include something special or if you will something outside of what we typically do for the port authority because the statute does allow for an assessment charge or a administrative charge to be
collected for that purpose. Um, we could also take a look at it as part of our annual fee structure when we are looking at the fees that we collect every year to collect a fee. um we could do so as part of that fee schedule update at the end of the year if we wish to do that.
The estimated cost that has been determined by land services to administer a special assessment is approximately $200. >> Okay. So then we wouldn't need to take an action on that today. We could do that at the end of the day. >> That would be part of the fee schedule structure. Correct.
>> Yeah. I think that's all I've got. I I'll bring a side question then. We were getting u from the uh panels out at the airport. Wasn't there some type of a tax tax credit that came from that? Is there
going to be the is there that's only because it's on that type of land? It would >> Madam Chair, Commissioner Lubkkey, that is because it is an energy company that is generating energy and there's a production pack production tax that they are paying. There would be no production tax that would be associated with this.
This is a private property only for the use of that property. >> Okay. Thank you for clearing that up. >> Okay. Any more discussion? >> We have a motion by Commissioner Leb, second by Commissioner Barrows. All those in favor? >> I opposed?
>> No. >> Motion carries. Thank you. >> Thank you, Holly. Madame Chair, the last item I have before you is a settlement agreement for the Whitefish Chain LLC versus Crowing
County. You previously had heard from our MCIT attorney in close session with regard to this settlement. Property owner has agreed to the settlement and it's now before you for approval. There are again two actions that seems to be my theme today. Two actions that will be
required of this. One would be to approve the settlement agreement. Secondly, to amend the plaque condition for lot 12, block 2, first addition to Delta Bay. If you rec if you recall the discussion that we had with the attorney, the settlement agreement does
not include any monetary or financial uh impact. Basically, it does allow the property owner to begin the process of obtaining a building permit again. they would have to start over from scratch with all of the things, all the
applications. This is the properties where the 1971 plaque condition basically the action of the county board had said that those part those parts that were in block two would not be able
to be build built upon and um it was not spelled out in the plat itself. Rather, that was just an action that the county board had taken at that point in time. What this settlement agreement does is basically allows or the county board
will agree to amend that restriction from 1971. That is that second resolution we'll be asking for. And it would also allow the property owners to begin to take the action again for their building process if they wish to do so.
It's also noting that the only lot, and Chris, correct me if I'm wrong, that lot 12 is the only one that would be subject to that plat condition that would be allowed to be buildable, potentially buildable, not saying it would be, but
would allowed to be considered separately from the lots that are in the block one of that particular plat. The settlement agreement also dismisses the action that is with the board of um with Bowser with the water and soil resource
board and releases all claims from all sides. >> Madam chair, just a question for the county administrator. So then and I believe we did have a discussion. This is not nonprecedented setting. >> That is correct. >> Correct. >> That is correct.
>> Okay. Motion. Are you going to you want uh both of them or separate or >> you can do them as let's do them as separate one to accept the settlement agreement and the second to amend the plaque condition. >> Can you pull up the first one please?
>> The first one is to approve the settlement agreement. So that is the cover sheet on that. Actually I don't think there's any language on there. Oh, that it. Nope, not that one.
Right there. Approve the settlement agreement. >> Okay. I would move that the county board of commissioners of growing county move to agree to the settlement agreement. >> Second. >> Motion by Commissioner Coring, second by Commissioner Barrows. Is there any more
discussion? All those in favor? >> I posted. Motion carries. Second action is then to approve the resolution amending the plat condition for lot 12 block 2 first edition to Del Delta Bay. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Motion by Commissioner Barrow, second by Commissioner Lebkey. All those in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. >> Madam Chair, that's all I have today unless anyone has any questions of me. >> You any additional business?
>> Madam Chair, I have a great announcement to make. As most people know, I'm a fan of the egg group in our county. I enjoy eating. It's obvious >> sharing.
>> But today, July 14th, is National Cow Day. And so I want every one of you as you drive throughout the county and you see a cow, I want you to wave at them and recognize them for the great effort they make to make me happy. So, with
that, uh, I'll make >> I got Okay, >> Madam Chair, I got one more thing. Uh, up in Pekquat, we are having our beanhole day today and tomorrow. We're putting the beans in the ground and we're going to have beanhole day. So, it's a good time to come up there. There's a lot of jokes around beans, but uh, just thought
I'd let I thought I'd share that since uh, Commissioner uh, Barrows had something. Did you have anything, Commissioner Coring? Okay, go ahead. Can >> I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Yes. >> So moved. So moved. >> Motion by Commissioner Barrow, second by
Commissioner Leky. All those in favor? I >> I